Wait, did Bush just do something I approved of?

The start of the headline I woke up to this morning, "Bush bans protests..." doesn't seem particularly constitutional, what with the first amendment and all. See?! Yet another example of Bush extending his presidential reach far beyond where it should go! Oh boy, you bastard, the ACLU'll string you up for this one...

But then I continued on to "...at military funerals," at which point I was ready for a story about anti-war protesters being stupid and disrespectful, and Bush being pro-military as long as his daughters don't get drafted. This was the story that I would have expected out of Bush. No one wants the anti-war people connecting the death of our sons and daughters to the shitty presidency that brought the war on in the first place.

Mind you, had that been the back-drop of the story, I would not have necessarily disagreed with the policy, as long as it wasn't so much a ban on protests as a protection of the families' privacy and a limitation of how close the protesters can be to the actual funeral. I'm all about the freedom to assemble and say what you want, but reminding people that their family members died in an unnecessary war and that their deaths shouldn't have happened, etc. when they're in the middle of a fucking funeral is really disrespectful. So I say back the fuck off.

But I never had to say that, 'cause apparently the whole cause for this "ban" was a bunch of anti-gay crazies from Kansas who were going to military funerals to spread the word that God was angry at the US's tolerance of gays. This same group has held protests against people living with AIDS and against Matthew Shepard.

Does it mean I'm going to hell when I wish that one of them will be diagnosed with AIDS to show them that it is not a gay disease? Ah, well, straight to hell I go.

Link